La gestión de los fondos de inversión de renta variable: Un análisis del maquillaje de carteras. Artículo núm. 144
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEl objetivo del presente trabajo es analizar si en el mercado espanol de fondos de inversion se verifican algunas de las anomalias e ineficiencias que se producen con regularidad en la mayoria de los mercados internacionales. Asimismo, se trata de comprobar si el mejor conocimiento del mercado que poseen los gestores, y sobre todo, la existencia de la informacion asimetrica son respecto al participe, son cuestiones aprovechadas por los directivos para obtener rendimientos extraordinarios en momentos puntuales del ano, como son los cambios de trimestre, a traves del maquillaje de carteras. El estudio se realiza para el periodo que abarca desde abril de 1991 a diciembre de 1998 para el colectivo de fondos de inversion de renta variable y renta variable mixta EnglishThe aim of this work is a analyse the existence of anomalies and inefficiencies in the Mutual Funds Spanish Market and verify the presence of window dressing at the end of the quarter, just before the publication of the periodic information about the managers and investors. The sample is made up of the risk portfolios that operate in the spanish market of mutual funds, in the period 1991-1998
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".